From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 1 17:56:06 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7C116A41F for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:56:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mv.twc.weather.com (mv.twc.weather.com [65.212.71.225]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA6E43D45 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:56:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [10.50.40.201] (Not Verified[65.202.103.25]) by mv.twc.weather.com with NetIQ MailMarshal (v6, 0, 3, 8) id ; Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:10:40 -0400 From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:55:18 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <64511.68.95.232.238.1122917387.squirrel@68.95.232.238> In-Reply-To: <64511.68.95.232.238.1122917387.squirrel@68.95.232.238> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508011355.19274.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Subject: Re: [patch] rc.d cleanup X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:56:06 -0000 On Monday 01 August 2005 01:29 pm, diz@linuxpowered.com wrote: > Hi there, > > This is my first patch to this project. > This is the first of many patches to come actually, but I need to find a > sponsor to guide me, and review what I submit. The patch is kinda big, and > far reaching in terms of altering almost every rc.d script. > > This patch effects most of the rc.d scripts that utilize simple IF > statements, converting them to logical AND/OR's instead. For example: > > if [ ! -f foo ] > then > bar > fi > > Would simply become: > > [ -f foo ] || bar > > The exception (but not the rule) is for any situation where ELIF/ELSE is > required. In other words any exclusive conditional situations. > > I also applied this notion to many simple blocks of code wrapped around > non-exclusive IF statements, such as: > > [ -f foo ] && { > command-list > [...] > } > > This has the result of reducing the size of the shell code, and reducing > the problem of over-engineering that plagues many scripts. I found quite > many places where there were one-line situations wrapped up in multi-line > IF statements, which I was compelled to eliminate. Further more, as I > audited the scripts, I noticed that in several places this style of > scripting was already used in various places. So I feel this make the > entire span of scripts uniform. > > > -Jon Disnard The argument I would have against this is that it is a lot easier to read the 'if foo; then ; fi' style, esp. for folks used to using C, etc. Shell scripts don't need to be overly obfuscated. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org